AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view
of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of intra-court appeals lead case being D.B. Civil Special Appeal Number
82/2013: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit, decided on 30th August, 2013; observing thus:
“We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and having perused the material placed on record.
We may, at once, observe that the contention as urged on behalf of the appellants, against a part of the observations occurring in the impugned order
dated 29.08.2012, cannot be considered to be wholly without substance where the learned Single Judge has proceeded to draw an analogy to the event
of SC/ST/OBC category 7 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals candidates being switched over to general category on the basis of their
merit. True it is that, ordinarily, if a reserved category candidate gets selected on the basis of merit, he cannot be treated as a reserved category
candidate and is not deprived of the right to be considered as a general category candidate. However, this event is not that of change of category as
such. Without much dilatation on this aspect, suffice would be to observe for the present purpose that the questioned observations occurring in the
order impugned could be left out of consideration and need not be approved. However, we are clearly of the view that other observations and findings
in the orders impugned cannot be said to be unjustified; and we are satisfied that the ultimate relief, as granted to the respondents (writpetitioners),
remain justified from every point of view and does not call for any interference. The appellants have repeatedly harped on the stipulations of the
nature as contained in clause 19 (1) of the advertisement dated 27.02.2012 which reads as under:-
Þ¼1½ vkosnuk i= izLrwr djus dh vfZUre fnukad 2-04-2012 jkf= cts rd vkuykbZu vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsaA rRi’pkr mä osclkbZV ij
miyC/k vkuykbZu flLVe Lor% gh cUn gks tk;sxkA vkuykbZu vkosnu dh leLr izfof""V;ka iw.kZ ,oa lgh ugha gksus ij vkosnu i= vLohd`r dj fn;k
tkosxkA vkuykbZu vkosnu i= esa nh xbZ tkudkjh ds fy, ftEesnkjh vkosnu dh gksxhA vkosnu i= esa dh xbZ izfof""V;ksa esa vfUre fnukad ds ckn fdlh
Hkh izdkj ds ifjorZu dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxh vkSj uk gh bl ckcr izLrqr fdlh izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkAÞ
Such a stipulation appears to be logical to some extent and the appellants appear to be right in their assertion that in an ordinary case, the particulars
stated in the application cannot be permitted to 8 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals be altered, lest it becomes an unending process.
However, the appellants, representing a welfare State, appear totally perfunctory in their approach when suggesting that even the categorization of a
married woman to a widow upon happening of an unfortunate event, i.e., demise of her husband after filing of the application, could also be considered
hit by the stipulation aforesaid. The stipulation as occurring in clause 19(1), obviously, operates in the case where the candidate has filled up the
application form stating his/her category and after the last date, seeks change of the category or any other particular stated in the application. The said
stipulation directly relates to an attempt by the candidate to seek alteration of the particulars in the application form on his/her own volition. The prayer
for such nature alteration can, of course, be denied under the said stipulation but then, the same cannot be considered operating in the case of present
nature where the woman candidate is neither seeking alteration of any particulars stated in the application nor seeking change of category of her own
accord or on account of any of her mistake. The prayer herein had been for consideration of the case of the individual writ-petitioner in widow
category because of an unfortunate event, and because of a peculiar reason, that she was rendered a widow after filling up the application form upon
demise of her husband.
It remains a matter of hard reality and of fact that each of the writ-petitioners was a married woman with her husband very much alive at the time of
her filling up the application form. They had submitted the form and filled in the category as applicable. It had been an unfortunate aspect that after
filling up of the forms, they lost 9 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals their respective husbands. The cases of the writ-petitioners could
not have been considered as that of seeking any ‘permission’ to change the category. In fact, their category got changed for vis major over
which, they had no control; rather they would have never wished it to happen.
Vis major i.e., act of God, refers to an occurrence taking place exclusively due to natural causes, and being of external nature, and further being the
one which cannot be anticipated or provided against. Sudden demise of a person remains essentially a matter beyond the control and anticipation of
human beings. Such an unfortunate event could nevertheless happen, as has happened in the present cases. The appellants cannot be considered
justified in suggesting that such an unfortunate event can also be ignored by them with a perfunctory reference to the stipulation like the one referred
above. It remains trite that the law does not envisage nor countenance an absurdity or impossibility. The propositions of the appellants, running against
the very fundamentals of law, are required to be rejected.
We are further of the view that when the appellants have provided for a special reservation to a category of persons requiring help and support of the
State i.e., the women suffering widowhood, any provision in that relation ought to be applied with a practical approach and with due respect to the
ground realities. The very object behind reservation for widow category would be defeated, if not rendered illusory, if the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case of a woman suffering widowhood after filling up of the application form but before completion of recruitment process, are
10 DBSAW No.82/2013 With 3 connected appeals ignored and she is not considered for appointment in widow category. We are at one that the
observations in the orders impugned that in these cases, the concerned authorities were rather under an obligation to consider the candidature of the
writpetitioners in widow category.
In view of the above, these appeals stand dismissed summarily, subject, of course, to the observations foregoing.â€
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the light of the law declared by the Division Bench in the case of Ms. Jamna Rajpurohit
(supra), which she is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive
representation ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a
reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt
of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.